Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Joe Benton: Good morning. I wish first to ask everyone to ensure that mobile phones and pagers are either switched off or on silent mode.
Today is quite an historic occasion. For the first time, a Public Bill Committee will be hearing oral evidence on a Bill. So that everyone is clear about what is happening, I shall briefly explain what is proposed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on which debate is limited to half an hour. We shall then proceed to debate a motion to report to the House the written evidence that the Committee receives and a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions.
When the Committee has agreed its lines of questioning, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will commence. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence this week before reverting to the more familiar proceedings of clause-by-clause scrutiny at subsequent sittings.
We come now to the programme motion, debate on which may continue for up to half an hour. I call the Minister.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 30th January) meet—
(a) at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 30th January;
(b) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 1st February;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 6th February;
(d) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th February;
(e) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 20th February;
(f) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 22nd February;
(g) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 27th February;
(h) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 1st March;
(i) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 6th March;
(j) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th March;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table;
TABLE

Date

Time

Witness
 Tuesday 30th January
Until no later than 1.00 p.m.
 Local Government Association
Tuesday 30th January
Until no later than 5.15 p.m.
Gordon Keymer CBE, Chair of the District Councils Group, Local Government Association
Tuesday 30th January
Until no later than 6.00 p.m.
London Councils
Tuesday 30th January
Until no later than 7.00 p.m.
Health Link
 Thursday 1st February
 Until no later than 10.25 a.m.
Unlock Democracy
 Thursday 1st February
 Until no later than 4.00 p.m.
Department for Communities and Local Government, Department of Health
(3) Proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 104; Schedule 7; Clauses 105 to 112; Schedule 8; Clauses 113 to 116; Schedule 10; Clause 117; Schedule 11; Clause 118 to 151; Schedule 12; Clauses 152 to 165; Schedule 14; Clauses 166 to 169; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 170 to 176; Schedules 1 to 6; Schedule 9; Schedule 13; Schedule 15; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th March.
Thank you, Mr. Benton, for your introduction. It is a privilege not only to be able to move the motion and put the Bill before the Committee on behalf of the Government, but to help in what you have described as an historic day for Parliament. This is the first time that this form of scrutiny has taken place. I thank all members of the Committee for taking part in the deliberations on what we believe to be an important Bill that introduces changes for local government and other agencies.
Although we have obviously not been able to satisfy all the requests that have been put before us, we have tried to ensure that we have a good range of witnesses. I emphasise that the list is not exhaustive in terms of people who submitted evidence during the White Paper consultation process, which took two years.
I believe that we have allocated a sensible use of our time for scrutiny of the Bill and the motion before us refers to the ordering of the clauses and schedules that the usual channels have discussed. I ask members of the Committee to support the programme motion.

Alistair Burt: Good morning, Mr. Benton, to you and members of the Committee. I wish first to endorse many of the remarks made by the Minister. It is indeed a pleasure to work under your chairmanship at the historic start to proceedings on the Bill. We are all looking forward to seeing how it will work. As Lord Cope said in his recent note that he sent round about the new procedure:
“The new process is not described as an experiment, but it is recognised that the system may need modification in the light of experience.”
We are in the happy position of being the first people to provide some of that experience on which modification might be based.
The decision to modernise legislative proceedings and to improve the way in which a Committee informed itself of what was before it through the process of taking evidence was warmly welcomed by the House when the Modernisation Committee reported after the matter was debated in November. We are pleased to be able to start the process that the Minister has outlined.
Now comes the historic “but” moment. We have recognised over the years that, whereas consensus is incredibly important, the danger of being over-consensual is that we miss things. We believe that it is our job to assist the process of modification by pointing out things that could be improved and by putting a little bit of grit in the oyster, which I intend to do. I shall come to that in a second.
I add to my welcomes by saying what a great pleasure it will be to work with the Minister. He and I have known each other for many years, and I regard him as a highly capable colleague with a great interest in and knowledge of the subject. I look forward to representing the Conservatives while he applies his skill to outlining the Government’s measures. In that spirit, I am sure that when we suggest changes that he knows need to be made, he will agree and ask his colleagues to do the same.
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab) indicated dissent.

Alistair Burt: The Whip shakes his head, as is his wont. He would be in trouble with the Whips’ union if he did not. We are looking forward to the debate on this interesting topic.
I turn to our slight concern about the programme motion and the reason why the Conservatives object to it. It is a bit rushed. We all know that calling witnesses, particularly to give oral evidence, was always going to involve a squeeze in the parliamentary legislative procedure, but it is necessary to get it off and running well in the first place, and we are not certain that that has happened.
In order for there to be sensible consideration of who ought to give evidence and to give witnesses time to rearrange their diaries accordingly, a certain amount of time is necessary. We are concerned that that has not been given. Progress was unduly hasty from Second Reading to the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, which is meant to make such decisions, and to this first Committee sitting. Second Reading was last Monday, the Programming Sub-Committee met on Thursday and here we are on Tuesday expecting people to be ready to come and give evidence.
Our point is that further consideration might have helped us. The Minister is right to say that a range of witnesses will be attending today and on Thursday, but there could have been more. Further time might have allowed the Committee to consider adding one or two. Our suggested witnesses included London Councils, which will be appearing; the parliamentary boundary commission, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities for their experience of regionalisation; Professor Michael Chisholm, to whom the Clerks’ briefing notes to the House referred for his work on the costs involved in local government reorganisation; Professor Tony Travers, who I suspect needs no introduction because of his knowledge of local government finance; Gordon Keymer, the head of the Local Government Association, who will be appearing this afternoon; and Michael Lyons, whose knowledge of local government finance is second only to that of Tony Travers.
Michael Lyons could have enlightened us about the continuing debate about which cart comes before which horse—whether we should be listening to him about the financial structure of local government or to others about the structure of local government to which he will apply his financial structure. There has been an interesting debate that could cut both ways, but it might have been enlightening to listen to what he thought and probe him with questions about the financial structure. Our point is that it is difficult now to decide on two-tier and unitary structure issues without knowing precisely what financial regime will be operating shortly.
We thought that hearing from Christopher Booker from The Sunday Telegraph might have been interesting, with his knowledge of the Standards Board and of ethics in particular, about which he has written extensively. We thought that Health Link might be involved, and it will be appearing. We suggested a think tank called Involve, as well as the Socialist Health Association in order to see whether it still had any chums among Labour Members.
Only in the last couple of days, we all received an e-mail from Gill Morgan of the NHS Confederation. Her absence is a potentially serious hole in our deliberations. If we had had a little more time, perhaps we would have thought of calling the NHS Confederation to give us its experience and wisdom, particularly concerning part 11 of the Bill and the issues of patient and public involvement. The possibility also arises that we might see Gill Morgan later in the Committee. I note that the guide given to us by the Chairman of Ways and Means includes a paragraph that states:
“Although the Committee is expected to take oral evidence at the start of its proceedings, there is no procedural reason why it may not return to evidence-taking later in its consideration of the Bill.”
Bearing in mind that the Bill is neatly drawn into local government and public health elements, it might be convenient to retain some flexibility in how we handle it, and to consider at some later stage whether Gill Morgan and the NHS Confederation might come along.

Michael Fabricant: The Chairman of Ways of Means has also made that recommendation to the Leader of the House. I think it is a good idea, and it follows on from what my hon. Friend was saying, although I am not sure, with the new procedure, whether I can say Alistair Burt, or whether I am supposed to refer to my hon. Friend. Perhaps Mr. Benton will give us a lead on the matter.

Joe Benton: Stick to the conventions.

Michael Fabricant: Select Committee conventions?

Joe Benton: The hon. Gentleman should refer to hon. Members.

Michael Fabricant: Of course. However, for those who are watching the new procedure, I point out that, on Select Committees, we refer to each other by name.
My hon. Friend made a point about the delay. The Chairman of Ways and Means, in a letter to the Leader of the House said that it would be a good idea to have at least two weekends’ gap between the Programming Sub-Committee and the first Committee sitting. That would have enabled us to have time to invite more people along, and to have a fuller discussion in the Programming Sub-Committee about who can come along to give evidence. I agree with my hon. Friend that, although it is a good idea, things that get done in a rush are not always satisfactory.

Alistair Burt: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is the reason why we are raising this procedural point. The House agrees that the innovation is important, and we want to get it right. I hope that, in future, notice is taken of the timing issues.
In his note, Lord Cope makes reference to the need to think ahead. He states:
“The timing will be very tight, particularly between second reading and decisions about who is to give evidence and for how long. Lobbyists and MPs involved will have to think ahead.”
We make those points because the rush that my hon. Friend described suggests that the Committee might not have thought ahead quite as much as it should have done. Notwithstanding that, and although we have our complaints, the Committee should proceed in the way in which the Government have suggested. However, if the Government note our concerns and pass them back through the usual channels, problems can be avoided in the future.
On the programming of the Committee, we asked for 22 sittings. However, after evidence is taken, we will have 16 sittings. The broad split that the Government have in mind for discussing the Bill is fine, and we will accommodate it—it is pretty much in line with our thinking. There may be a little bit of flexibility either way, but we intend to take the measure through Committee as the Government have suggested. That gives us plenty of time to examine the Bill as we would wish, and to make our objections. We hope that the spirit that we are taking towards the Committee shows that when we divide the Committee, the concerns we raise are genuine and serious. We will not play games in the Committee. We will put forward the issues that matter and vote on them accordingly. Within that framework, we are looking forward to dealing with the witnesses and the substance of the Bill in the right spirit.

Andrew Stunell: I start by welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. We are looking forward to working with you and other members of the Committee over the next few weeks.
On the new process, the Liberal Democrats strongly support the additional element of procedure in the Committee. We hope that it will turn out to be a profitable process for this Committee, and that it can be developed on future occasions to be still more effective. It is clearly sensible that we have access to expert and practitioner advice on some of the key elements of the Bill, and we are looking forward to working through that process.
The Conservative spokesman said that we on this Committee are pioneers, but I think that perhaps we are more like guinea pigs. The Government have tried hard, but if we are to be guinea pigs, can we have a bit more lettuce and a bit less grit next time? There is scope to improve the process. I do not blame anybody. We are pioneers—there were no protocols or process and we have had to make the best of things. Nevertheless, I hope that the opportunity will be taken, behind the scenes, to consider the lessons learned by all those involved on how the new process should be commissioned and initiated.
I support the point made by the Chairman of Ways and Means in his initial proposal that there should be two weekends-worth of thinking time—a clear week—between Second Reading and plunging into the process. The speed with which we have begun the Committee stage is the reason why my third colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, is not here. He is away on a parliamentary visit and it was not possible for him to reorganise his schedule in the time available.
My party looks forward to working on the Bill with other colleagues in the Committee. We have some major issues that we shall bring to the attention of the Committee, but I echo the words of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman—we do not intend either to waste the Committee’s time or to involve ourselves in unnecessary controversy. We want to see a much improved Bill, and we shall work constructively to achieve that.

Patrick Hall: I too welcome the new procedure, but I have one or two questions about the decisions that have been made—including on how they have been made—which I ask in the spirit of wishing to improve the process. For example, how were the witnesses selected, and why was not the Committee involved in that?
It might be difficult for the Committee to be involved, and some organisation in advance might be needed, but I should like to know how the selection was made. Today, for example, the Local Government Association will appear before us, quite rightly. The LGA represents all strands of local government, yet we will have a part repeat in respect of district councils, and a further repeat in respect of another part of local government with London Councils, so we have three bites of the same cherry taking up witness time today. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said that he had a huge list of possible witnesses, yet time will be taken up considering LGA work in those three separate bites. This evening we shall hear from Health Link, but we do not have time for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. That was the body that set up patients forums, so it would have been reasonable to hear from it. We need to learn some lessons on that.
There is another important point to do with administration. There has been little time to prepare and to read the brief. We shall do our best, but I rescued my papers from the post room at 8 o’clock yesterday evening; they were about to be posted to Bedford. Without the co-operation of the post service in the House that would not have helped me a great deal.
I mention those points not in a negative, critical manner but in a constructive one, in the hope that we shall do better in future.

Joe Benton: The points that the hon. Gentleman makes are well taken. We are all on a learning curve. His remarks are duly noted and I am sure that they will be taken on board. That is far as I can go at the moment.

Phil Woolas: I thank all those who have commented, including the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. Perhaps in the future he could be not quite so kind and flattering.
The Government take the procedures seriously. We have proposed a number of modernisation steps in relation to the way in which we legislate, and inevitably changes cause problems and difficulties, but they bed in over time. I think that the House consensus is that the changes we have made have been improvements. I know that the Opposition have some principled objections to programming, which I understand. For our part, the Executive have to bear in mind some real-world issues, including those to do with financial years. It is a question of balance.
 The Bill’s First Reading was on 12 December, so we moved quickly from White Paper to Bill. We also published a White Paper implementation plan. We did that deliberately because local government had asked us to move ahead quickly after an exhaustive period of genuine consultation. I hope that the LGA, when it gives evidence, will acknowledge that. By the end of the period, we were criticised for having too much consultation. To reiterate the point made by the Modernisation Committee, the witnesses appearing before the Committee are not the only evidence givers available. All of us who have served on Bill Committees know that there is sometimes an exhaustive amount of briefing and lobbying. Nowadays such communications tend to come by e-mail, but people used to come to our weekend advice surgeries to lobby. It would not be fair to give the impression that anybody has been excluded from access to the Committee. A number of organisations have been mentioned. We have had the Bill since before December. I understand the point about the two weekends’ gap, but, to be fair to the Government, the Bill has been published for a number of weeks.
Specifically on the timing, we have tried to balance time and the necessity of making progress. I appreciate that the Opposition asked for slightly more sittings, but as a member of the ex-Whips union, I think that the Whips on both sides have been sensible in their approach and that we have a good schedule. As for the list of organisations, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford made a very sensible point about involving the Committee in inviting and deciding on witnesses. Obviously the timing of this Committee—it being the first one to use the new procedure—has made that difficult. The House voted that Bills introduced after Christmas 2006 should be subject to the new procedure. This Bill was introduced before Christmas 2006 but it is the first to be subject to the procedure. I am not sure whether we are guinea pigs or pilots, but the Government are using the new procedure now as a gesture of goodwill and transparency. We did not have to under the resolution of the House, so I hope that the Committee will bear with us.
The list of organisations and individuals that we have to consult in local government is exhaustive. It is perhaps unfortunate from my point of view that the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill should be the first to be subject to such scrutiny. The organisations that my colleagues and I meet in consultation over local government would fill a telephone directory—I mean that literally. We have to strike a balance.
The usual channels are the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who made some suggestions. I understand that the Opposition have proposed an on the whole distinguished list of people to give evidence. I have read and seen submissions from all of them apart from Christopher Booker, whose cuttings I read on Monday morning. To be fair, I can often learn things from him, although he is perhaps one of the more zealous commentators.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove questioned whether we were guinea pigs or pilots. I suppose that we are both. Is it possible to be both a guinea pig and a pilot? I would not get on a plane being flown by a guinea pig, but we would be lucky if we could get on any plane tomorrow.

Alistair Burt: I think that that indicates the hon. Gentleman and his party’s victim status. We regard ourselves as pioneers and they regard themselves as guinea pigs.

Phil Woolas: Having said that, they will probably define themselves as both now.
I should like to draw Committee members’ attention to an important passage in the Members’ guidance on the new Public Bill Committees, published by the Library. The Modernisation Committee’s report, “The Legislative Process”, which proposed evidence-taking powers, says that those are intended
“to enable the Members who will be going through the bill in detail to inform themselves about its contents and to give the Minister a chance to respond to questions from the Committee, a process which is likely to be more fruitful that a series of debates on ‘probing’ amendments.”

Alison Seabeck: I wish to ask a question through you, Mr. Benton, because I am not quite sure how probing amendments will e dealt with. Clearly, the idea is potentially to reduce the number of probing amendments. I assume that you have the power, when amendments are tabled, to determine whether their substance has already been extensively discussed during the evidence-taking process.

Joe Benton: I imagine that, subject to legal guidance to the contrary, the usual protocol will be observed. In other words, if there has been adequate discussion and coverage of any given matter, the Chairman has discretion to say, “This has been adequately discussed,” as, for example, when dealing with clause stand part, and it is felt that the whole clause has, in general, been adequately discussed. I imagine that the same flexibility will be available, subject to any legal advice to the contrary.

Alison Seabeck: Thank you, Mr. Benton.

Phil Woolas: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Benton; I also thank my hon. Friend for the intervention that drew it out.
It is perhaps worth saying that, as was always the case in Standing Committees, it is open to the Committee to sit beyond 7 o’clock, if that is decided on. The Committee may recall that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I were both members of the Standing Committee dealing with the minimum wage, which had the longest sitting of a Standing Committee in the history of Parliament. The former hon. Member for Solihull wrote a book about that—

Alistair Burt: During it.

Phil Woolas: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not take my punchlines. Seriously, though, we do give time to debate. We as a Government believe that we have built up a consensus for the major measures in the Bill.

Alistair Burt: Will the Minister consider again the good point made by the hon. Member for Bedford, about how to involve the majority of Committee members in decisions on witnesses? Either we recommend that it is not the Programming Sub-Committee that makes the decisions on witnesses, but the Committee as a whole—which might be uncomfortable—or the usual channels give a commitment that, before the Programming Sub-Committee meets, discussions will be held with those who are anticipated to be Committee members so that their expertise may be brought in. Although the process was designed to ensure that the usual channels and the hon. Members leading on Bills for their parties would contribute to the selection of witnesses, that excludes the expertise of hon. Members brought on to the Committee because they are interested in and have knowledge about the area. Either that should be formally recognised in the process of involving witnesses—it could be accommodated if there were two weekends between the decision being made and asking them—or, if that cannot be done, the usual channels should give a commitment to involve Committee members in the process.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. One would have to consider the guidance from the House on oral evidence, which says that
“The witness programme will be agreed through the usual channels, in consultation with the Bill team.”
However, I undertake to consider the hon. Gentleman’s point.

It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion,  The Chairman  put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order 83C(9).

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 30th January) meet—
(a) at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 30th January;
(b) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 1st February;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 6th February;
(d) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th February;
(e) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 20th February;
(f) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 22nd February;
(g) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 27th February;
(h) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 1st March;
(i) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 6th March;
(j) at 9.30 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th March;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table;
TABLE

Date

Time

Witness
 Tuesday 30th January
 Until no later than 1.00 p.m.
 Local Government Association
Tuesday 30th January
Until no later than 5.15 p.m.
Gordon Keymer CBE, Chair of the District Councils Group, Local Government Association
Tuesday 30th January
Until no later than 6.00 p.m.
London Councils
Tuesday 30th January
Until no later than 7.00 p.m.
Health Link
 Thursday 1st February
 Until no later than 10.25 a.m.
Unlock Democracy
 Thursday 1st February
 Until no later than 4.00 p.m.
Department for Communities and Local Government, Department of Health
(3) Proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 104; Schedule 7; Clauses 105 to 112; Schedule 8; Clauses 113 to 116; Schedule 10; Clause 117; Schedule 11; Clause 118 to 151; Schedule 12; Clauses 152 to 165; Schedule 14; Clauses 166 to 169; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 170 to 176; Schedules 1 to 6; Schedule 9; Schedule 13; Schedule 15; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th March.

Joe Benton: I now call the Minister to move the motion to report written evidence. This is a formality whereby any written evidence that the Committee accepts enjoys the benefit of parliamentary privilege.

Ordered,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Joe Benton: Copies of any memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee room.
I now call the Minister to move the motion to permit the Committee to sit in private.

Ordered,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—[Mr. Woolas.]

The Committee deliberated in private.

On resuming—

Joe Benton: We will now hear oral evidence from representatives of the Local Government Association. I welcome the witnesses and ask them to introduce themselves.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   I am Jeremy Beecham, vice-chairman of the LGA, which is the Local Government Association and not, as it might be thought, the local guinea pig association, bearing in mind your previous discussion.

Sir Simon Milton:   I am Simon Milton, a deputy chairman of the LGA.

Richard Kemp:   I am Richard Kemp, also a deputy chairman of the LGA.

Paul Coen:   I am Paul Coen, chief executive of the LGA.

Joe Benton: Welcome. Before calling the first Committee Member to ask a question, I would like to remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to the provisions of the Bill.

Q1Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): In what circumstances would it be appropriate for the Secretary of State’s power of direction to be used? What do you believe is intended by the phrase, “in the interests of effective and convenient local government” in that context?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   We take the view that power to direct should be limited in terms of both time and object. We understand from the Minister’s speech at the LGA’s assembly that the intention of the clause was to allow for a direction to be given in the present context when an authority makes a proposal that might not necessarily be acceded to by other authorities in the same area. Our view is that the power of direction should not extend beyond the current round of consideration of reorganisation. As for the criteria, our view is that there should be support across the area in which a unitary authority might be proposed and that there should be demonstrable efficiency savings that would accrue to the area’s taxpayers.

Robert Syms: I am interested in hearing the views of the other witnesses.

Richard Kemp:   As far as my party and my part of the LGA are concerned, I support that view.

Sir Simon Milton:   That is the LGA view, and it is supported by all the groups. It is fair to say that my group remains to be convinced of the benefits of restructuring, because of the costs and disruption that are generally caused and the time taken to recover, all of which leads to a performance dip for residents and communities, at least in the short term.

Q2  Alistair Burt:  The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that she had given you a commitment to “narrow the scope of the power to direct”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1159.] When did she give you that commitment? Given that it was made, why does your brief state so straightforwardly: “We are, however, resolutely opposed to imposed restructuring and consequently opposed to the proposed Secretary of State powers to direct”? You do not mention any suggested commitment to amend the power, yet the Secretary of State said that she had already told you of that. What is your view?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   The chairman of the association and I, together with the chief executive, met the Secretary of State about a month ago. The Secretary of State indicated that intention in clear terms, and the Minister for Local Government, present in this Committee, gave a similar assurance at the LGA’s assembly meeting in December. We have not yet seen any definitive wording, so we wanted to stake out our position in the clearest possible terms.

Alistair Burt: You are not the only ones.

Q3 Andrew Stunell:  May I pick up the point on the costs of reorganisation? The Government have produced an assessment that the costs will be £12 million over three years, with savings of £5 million a year. Do you think that those assessments are realistic? Do you have any alternative figures or views that you would like to give us?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   We have alternative figures. Those estimates are estimates. I recall that in previous reorganisations the estimated savings were not necessarily always achieved. There is always a question mark about that.

Richard Kemp:   To take that further, if you want the evidence, you need to go back to the last round of unitary creation. None of the unitaries created as much savings as quickly as was forecast when they were created. That is not to say that savings did not come eventually, or that there may not be other reasons for doing it. However, cost savings were not realised in the short-term before, and I cannot see why they should be now.

Sir Simon Milton:   The only thing that I would add is that all local authorities are currently expected to make very significant efficiency savings. We are about to be given 3 per cent. cashable savings targets, which will be a considerable increase on the previous efficiency targets. We are all looking for shared services and procurement efficiencies, so there is already a great movement towards cost reduction in local authorities. Restructuring will actually set back a lot of that work, through diversion of the limited capacity of any council to engage with big change programmes of any kind.

Q4Tom Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): I should like to turn to part 2 of the Bill. You say in your brief that electoral and warding arrangements should be a matter for local discretion and therefore you support them, but in fact the Bill contains an irrevocable move towards all-out elections. Clearly, all-out elections on a four-year basis support the model of an elected mayor or an elected cabinet with a four-year term. Some might argue, however, that the present system used by some district councils of almost annual elections engages more electors over a four-year period, holds the council accountable each year and militates against catastrophic change. Are you as relaxed about the move to all-out arrangements as your brief suggests?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   With respect, I do not read the Bill in quite the same way in terms of requiring all-out elections every four years for everyone. I am open to correction, but my reading is that, if that decision is made, it will become a permanent decision, but you are not required to make that decision.
As I recall, the Bill provides for when you do not make the decision. For example, the term of an indirectly elected leader and executive would coincide with whatever period is unexpired of his or her current four-year term. It may be in some people’s minds to move to all-out elections across the country, but that is not the LGA’s position. We think that it should remain a matter for local discretion. There are mixed views about it. I concur with the view that district councils have put to Mr. Levitt and prefer the system of election by thirds. Other people will have a different view. My colleagues and others are used to four-year terms and may well prefer them. We think that it should be a matter for local decision.

Sir Simon Milton:   I am against catastrophic change.

Richard Kemp:   The serious point is that it is a one-way trade at the moment. If there is to be true local discretion, there must be a two-way trade and, with mayors, it is difficult to reverse a mayoral vote. I believe that, if you try something that does not work, it is ridiculous to keep flogging a dead horse. Personally, I am in favour of regular elections because that refreshes the political parties, as much as anything. I go to a lot of two-tier areas where the political parties—this is true of all parties—tend to go to sleep for a period and then suddenly, six months before a local election, they think, “Oh, we want to start doing something.” A regular refreshment is better than an all-up situation.

Sir Simon Milton:   I would counter that. The work in which I am involved at the LGA is much around the improvement agenda and ensuring that councils that are struggling improve. You will often find councils that are struggling are those that find it difficult to get clear political direction and that is compounded by frequent elections and the inability to make difficult decisions.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   On the other hand, you can freeze into a situation of being hung for four years.

Q5Mr. Neil Turner (Wigan) (Lab): To follow up the point about local discretion, there is a clear statement that you would want that discussion to be left with the authority and the ability for it to reverse it if it was found that it was not right. Would you extend that to say that those councils that are currently up for election once every four years should have the opportunity of moving towards election by thirds, if they so wish?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   Yes.

Joe Benton: We shall move on to part 3, which deals with executive arrangements for England.

Q6Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): I would like to focus on one of three models of executive arrangements set out in the Bill—that of elected leader with a four-year term. What are your views on the circumstances in which you think that a council might remove a leader by resolution and whether, in practice, when a leader loses the confidence of his or her political group, they might be removed so that there might in fact be little difference from the present arrangements?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   That is probably true. The intention of the Bill is to create or promote a somewhat different culture. I do not think that it will lead necessarily to people automatically lasting the four-year course in every case. It would be wrong if it did so. I think the structure would encourage that and perhaps the political parties’ guidance and rules, where political parties are involved, might also facilitate that. Certainly, the Labour party rules allow for a longer period than one year at the moment, although I am not aware of many Labour groups that have adopted that model, but it could a matter for the political parties to promote. The important safeguard is that there must be the capacity to change.

Richard Kemp:   I think that there is a further problem that has not been considered in suggesting any of the options, which is that something like a third of the councils in this country are in no overall control. For example, in the council in the constituency of the Chair there has been a three-party controlling cabinet for a considerable period, and in Leeds there is a four-party one. I am not quite sure how a single leader with the executive functions proposed in this Bill could cope in such a situation, as coalitions move around for various reasons. It is not just a question of confidence in the leader, but of confidence in the parties. I do not think that the proposals reflect the three-party, and in some cases four-party, nature of local government these days.

Q7Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): First, I draw your attention, Mr. Benton, and that of other Committee members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests as a councillor on Tameside metropolitan borough council.
Given what has just been said, does the Bill make sufficient provision for removing incompetent leaders, mayors and other elected members of an executive? Do you think that that provision is required in the Bill or can the matter be dealt with through other means?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   The position of leaders under the Bill is clear. Incompetent leaders, should there be any such around, can be removed. There is not, of course, provision for the recall of a mayor or, as I understand it, of an executive. That matter might be pursued further, but there is no such provision in the Bill.

Sir Simon Milton:   Sir Peter, in his question, put it very well when he said that there is very little difference between what has been proposed and the current situation, in which, if a leader loses the confidence of their group, that is where a change will happen—and only then would it be presented to a full council meeting.

Q8 Andrew Gwynne:  So do you think that further provision is required to address the issue of elected mayors in particular?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   We have not considered that as an addition to the Bill, so I do not think that we have an LGA position. We might have a separate brief on that.

Q9Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge) (Lab): The Local Government Information Unit has expressed concern that the new provisions might mean greater centralisation of power with the leader or mayor. Do you share this concern?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   Given that the leader can be removed, as we have already discussed at some length, no. I think the safeguards are there for that, coupled with the increased emphasis on scrutiny, which is a later part of the Bill that we regard as very important.

Sir Simon Milton:   The strong leader model already exists in many councils, so it is not an innovation in that sense. I think that the Bill is trying to prompt all councils down that route and the removal of the leader has to be a necessary mechanism if you go down that route. But my council—long before I was leader—has always had a strong-leader model and the leader appoints all the cabinet members. It works well.

Richard Kemp:   I think we have to differentiate between the LGA’s overall position on the maximum amount of local discretion, subject to the ability to recall, and the individual position that any of us might take, either as political parties or in individual circumstances. The situations are very different, city to city—between Liverpool and Manchester, say—and we might come up with different solutions. That is what the LGA is advocating. How we, as political parties, would then campaign on some of these issues would be a different matter.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   And indeed how the parties might operate. Even under the present system, we had, in the Labour party, intervened in some councils where the leadership was thought to have been defective in order to secure change.

Q10 Patrick Hall:  A recurring theme that I hear from local back-bench councillors—I am sure I am not the only one to hear it—is that they feel unloved. If councillors are not on the executive or cabinet, they feel that they are not sufficiently appreciated and that the scrutiny role is not satisfying. I have heard that from quite a few councillors. May I ask you all how the executive arrangements set out in part 3 of the Bill might change the position of non-executive councillors, if at all? Do you see the proposals in part 3 as having the potential to increase the interest in standing for election to a local council and to draw new people in?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   Yes, I think so. We strongly support the enhanced role given to what the Bill describes as the front-line councillor in a constituency capacity. I am referring to the proposal to facilitate devolution or delegation of powers to ward councillors so that they can act as community champions and take some executive decisions and have an enhanced scrutiny role. A mythology has developed over the years about how influential back-bench councillors were under the previous committee system. There is the illusion of influence over, and control of, the leadership that was not justified by the processes that were actually involved.
On the other hand, if the system is to work, scrutiny has to be adequately supported and supplemented by the engagement of people from the community, private and third-sector interests and so on. The scrutiny role needs to be more rigorous and developed than it has been. That is a way in which people might be encouraged; people who do not necessarily want to spend all their time sitting in committees in which they might, on average, make a four-minute contribution to the deliberations at the town hall. One of the great virtues of the scrutiny system is—or should be—that councillors are not whipped; they are called upon to exercise their own judgment in a process that is not predetermined by the group whip.

Sir Simon Milton:   There is no doubt that councillors who experienced the old system dislike the new system and have not adjusted to it. In my view, the executive arrangements in the Bill will not make a great deal of impact on that. Jeremy is right to say that the sense of getting things done, influencing decisions and making things happen is what makes a councillor who is not in the executive feel that they are doing a worthwhile job. Therefore, I am trying in my own authority to enhance the role, powers and influence of the non-executive councillor in a range of ways to try to put back what they think they have lost, even if Jeremy is right in saying that they did not in the past have as much influence as they thought. It is about ensuring that a council’s constitution empowers and enables back benchers, so that getting elected means that they can make a difference on their own and make things happen for people.

Q11 Patrick Hall:  What sort of initiatives you are talking about?

Sir Simon Milton:   In Westminster, we have done a lot of research with members about what frustrates them, and about where they think the gaps are. A lot of the problem boils down to lack of information. Members feel that they are out of the loop because they do not see the papers that go across the desk of the executive members, and they are often consulted far too late in the process. It is about ensuring that members are there at the beginning of the process, when decisions need to be taken.
We are having some good area integration meetings in which councillors from one area will sit down with officers from all the relevant departments and problem solve or troubleshoot issues that concern them. I hope that they will therefore feel that they can make things happen, and get the credit for the things that happen.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   May I add one further comment in relation to the elected executives? There is one respect in which the Bill in its present form might exacerbate the problem to which Mr. Hall referred. If it occurs, the election of executives will then precipitate by-elections for any member of the elected executive who was also elected as a councillor at the same time. There is perhaps a question as to why it is necessary for the executive not to be drawn—albeit elected on a slate on the same day—from elected councillors? Why do you have to treat them, as it were, as a class apart within the council? That might be something that the Committee would wish to consider.

Richard Kemp:   I certainly support that view. To my mind, one of the weaknesses of the mayoral system is that the mayor and the group are quite divorced. If you then have 10 people who are quite divorced, that would damage the unity of political parties, which in terms of big councils, is actually quite important.
To go back to the original question, I have been a cabinet member under the new system, a committee chair under the old system and a back-bencher under both. I must say that I get a great deal of satisfaction out of being a back-bencher. I enjoy the work in my ward and perhaps, because I have been around a long time, I can pull people together. I enjoy an element of scrutiny, although I must admit that I do not go to a lot of what we call in Liverpool select committees because, by and large, they do not function very well. I enjoy being able to stand up in council and say everything that I think without being bounded by cabinet responsibility.
We need, however, to address the point about council members’ perception that you are either a sheep or a goat; you are either in the cabinet or shadow cabinet or not very important. That is how the current power structure looks. It is does not matter how good the initiatives are—and we all try to do things to involve all the council—in the old system, you were there when the decisions were taking place, you could hear the arguments and you understood them. Getting a seminar, the appropriate report, the appropriate information on the website is not the same as being part of that debate, even if the reality was that you stuck your hand up when your spokesman or your chair told you to.
Therefore, I think there are real issues about how back benchers obtain knowledge. There are issues that need to be addressed by almost every council about how we support ward members, front-line councillors—whatever we call them—in doing the job that I define as being the cabinet member for their ward. There is a long way to go.

Q12 Alistair Burt:  Can I follow that up and say that it would suit you to prefer the new system? You are leaders and not back benchers. [Interruption.] Well, you have been leader; you are the leadership cadre of the LGA. It was noticeable during the debate that many Members on both sides were concerned about just the issues that Councillor Kemp has been mentioning. Why should not local authorities have the choice? Why should not this Bill not offer an option for councillors to go back to committees, if that is what they wish to do? In that way, by allowing that opportunity, you involve all the councillors, once again, in making a decision about the leadership arrangements for their council. That might enable negotiation to take place on the sort of powers that they might have.
Therefore, I would submit that it is very easy for the leadership to say, “This works for us; it is new; we can find lots of ways in which they can be involved in their wards and that will keep them all busy” and all that sort of thing. However, they do not want that. They want to be, as Councillor Kemp said, in the loop. Why should we not simply offer them the additional option of being in the loop through this Bill? Would you support an amendment to that effect?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   I would not. That is because I base my view on my experience, not as a leader of a committee chair but as a back bencher. It was my time on the back benches, which was a very small period in my length of service on the council, that persuaded me that the committee system really did not deliver for back-bench members. I think that the present system— for all the dissatisfaction among old hands like me, although in this case, I do not share it—is a better system. In my view, it promotes greater accountability of the leadership of local authorities to their communities. It would not be desirable to seek to overturn those changes, but rather to strengthen the scrutiny side and make that work better. However, I am not sure that the association has a view on that, so that is my personal view.

Richard Kemp:   We clearly do not have a position as an association on that, but it would be an option that I would support. I do not think that anyone wants to go back to the old committee system where we had task groups reporting to working parties reporting to sub-committees reporting to two lots of committees who in turn reported to human resources and policy and finance. If one of them did not like anything, they went back to the task group to start again. I do not think that anyone pines for that system, but an enhanced committee system, based on the experience that we have now, would be possible. However, we do not want the old system as it existed in places like Liverpool.

Sir Simon Milton:   I regretted the fact that councils were not given the option to have a committee system under the original Local Government Act. To be consistent, I would welcome that option, although I am not sure whether my council would go back to that system.

Alistair Burt: But my point was to be given the option, because this is a very intimate part of local government work. I would be irked if I were told by the Government, “This is how you should do leadership, and we cannot trust you to choose your own method.” I was simply exposing the opportunity of raising a further option to give you the choice rather than the Government— [Interruption.] I can tell by the nods that people might welcome exploring that option in Committee.

Q13 Sir Peter Soulsby:  You have responded to the specific suggestion of a possible return to the committee system. Are there other ways in which you think that the Bill might be improved to facilitate and encourage the engagement of the majority of councillors to ensure that they feel that what they are doing is a job worth doing?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   I am not sure that the Bill is necessarily the right vehicle for that. The Secretary of State was about to announce the creation of a commission to look at ways of attracting and retaining people to serve as councillors, and we look forward to participating in that. There is a range of issues—not necessarily to be contained within legislation—for which the Bill might not be the right vehicle. Those issues include time off, support for members carrying out their duties, child care arrangements, remuneration and so on. There may be some legislative changes required, for example, to promote time off, but that ought to wait upon the Secretary of State’s review. Within the Bill, there are already some measures, at any rate, to enhance the role of councillors, and we all welcome those.

Sir Simon Milton:   I agree. To broaden the response to your question slightly, I think that part of the decline of interest in local government has been as a result of an over-centralising approach. To the extent that the Bill starts the journey towards decentralisation, that in itself is a good thing and ought to encourage more people to get involved. However, as you might hear later, we think that the Bill could and should go a lot further. That, in itself, would also result in greater engagement not just for members standing for council but for the public.

Q14 Andrew Stunell: The new feature of the leadership model is the directly elected executive. In introducing that, the Government have explained to us that it is the result of two and a half years of detailed discussion with local government. Can you can tell us the principal arguments that you used to persuade the Minister to adopt this model?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   I do not think that we used any arguments, nor did we seek to persuade the Minister, but there are some local authorities that pursued that agenda. Stockton-on-Tees was one authority that canvassed that idea quite intensively with the Government. I am not aware that the association itself has pursued it. For myself, I would not touch it with the proverbial bargepole, but that is another matter.

Richard Kemp:  If we want to reproduce the old aldermanic bench and subsequent aldermanic by-elections, I think that we have found the modern terminology for doing it. Certainly I have had no discussions, and I share the scepticism of my colleague from Newcastle.

Joe Benton: We shall now move on to part 4 of the Bill, which deals with parishes.

Q15 Alistair Burt:  Which parish councils should be eligible to receive the power to promote well-being? You said that you want to be involved in deciding the criteria. Have you discussed that with the Government? While we are on the subject of parishes and devolved powers, my own researches with the parish councils in my constituency reveal mixed opinions. A number of councils are keen to take on extra powers, but they are all worried about more pressure being put on them. Cardington parish council says, “concern was also expressed that at this time it is already difficult to get people willing to volunteer to become parish councillors” due to “the volume of consultation documents received for comments”. Stevington parish council said, “we foresee difficulty in encouraging residents to stand for the parish council in the future if the role becomes more onerous.”
It is a genuinely difficult to balance to strike, and I am not sure how far things should go. What is your feeling about the capacity and willingness of parish councils to take more on, not only in relation to well-being but on devolution of powers generally? Are we achieving the right balance, or should there be flexibility, so that not too much is placed on the shoulders of the extraordinary people who serve on parish councils?

Richard Kemp:   We support the proposals in the Bill, because we believe that the Bill is enabling, rather than mandatory. I am sure that there are parish councils that are up for it and capable of moving forward. It is a great exercise in democracy. Elections are not held in some half of parish councils in the country, and at any one time there is a considerable number of vacancies that are filled by co-option. On the one hand there are the types of parish council that you have described. On the other hand there are those of the type adjacent to Mr. Benton’s constituency, in Maghull, which now represents a very big urban area. I think that there are some 40,000 electors there, and the budget is £3 million. That parish is probably up to the challenge of dealing with its well-being issues, but we must distinguish between the two types.
In my own city of Liverpool there are no parish councils, but that does not mean that a lot is not done at the equivalent of parish level. For example, we run—through the Government—a “new deal for communities” programme, and that will continue. There are no tax-raising powers, however, and nor would they be wanted. There are no parish councils in wards such as my own, which is a middle-class ward with very few problems, but we do have a neighbourhood management system that enables local decision making to occur at the lowest possible level, in the hands of staff who work with front-line councillors. 
There is no simple answer. We should examine localised arrangements that work across the spectrum of different neighbourhoods and localities. We support the Bill in so far as it is enabling, but we recognise that there are other mechanisms for public involvement, public consultation and public decision making which already exist in different parts of the country. Indeed, within some cities there may be different mechanisms applying in different parts, depending on the opportunities in the relevant neighbourhoods.

Q16 Alison Seabeck:  Do you have concerns about the potential effects of the establishment of parishes on community cohesion in certain new areas, particularly in inner-city areas? If so, what protection could be proposed to ensure that parishes are not at risk of being taken over by narrow interest or divisive groups?

Richard Kemp:   That is potentially an issue that applies anywhere. My gut feeling, knowing cities better than rural areas, is that if there is a move toward parish councils it is more likely to come in middle-class areas than in the Toxteths and Vauxhalls of this world. It is already a problem that we have to deal with. There are a number of groups that claim to be representative in any one area. Residents’ associations can claim to be representative despite representing, say, the six people who turn up to the annual meeting or the seven people in total who support the association. The issue would enter a new dimension if there were a statutory parish council, however.
If there is a desire in any area for a parish council, the question will be how we, as political parties—as opposed to the LGA—react. If the British National party was to take over an area because we as political parties were not working in it and were not campaigning or delivering for local people, the fault would be partly ours, collectively, rather than of any particular local government system. That can be said to some extent of principal councils in which the BNP has already established a considerable presence.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   There are concerns on the issue, particularly in London, where the proposal to permit parishing and reinvent the Victorian vestries has less than enthusiastic agreement, as I think Simon will confirm, from most of London local government. That is partly for the reasons that Ms Seabeck mentioned. However, I understand that the Bill contains provision for review of community governance and for the principal authority, if need be, to create a parish council or indeed to remove it once it is introduced. That might be some safeguard, but there is another issue, particularly in larger urban areas, of the volatility of the population. It is one thing to have a settled community with a representative body at the parish or community level; it is another where you have a large population turnover, as in London or the core of great conurbations, where there is not that stability and where the concept of a small local representative body is perhaps less persuasive.

Q17 Tom Levitt:  Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill are quite closely related. The Government have spoken on many occasions of parish councils’ potential to give people a stronger voice, greater citizen engagement and so on, notwithstanding the failings to which Councillor Kemp drew our attention just now. Bearing that in mind, do you think that the process of parishing encourages the development of sustainable local area agreements and roles for parishes within them? Conversely, should local area agreements and their needs be taken into account when considering whether to parish an area?

Richard Kemp:   If I looked at an LSP and LAA and saw that all the people, the chief executives and the leaders had signed up to something, at city level in my case, and could not work out that in the neighbourhoods they were delivering—in a different way, jointly and together—agreed neighbourhood objectives that followed from the big principles, I would be extremely worried about that. The question is not whether cohesion from the LAA should take place at the lowest possible level, particularly in areas of greater stress; it should. The question is what governance mechanisms are required for that. The governance mechanism might well be a parish council, but I can think of four or five others that would be better or at least as adequate.
We must not confuse governance and delivery. Perhaps one of the most important things that we do as councillors is to devolve to our local area managers the ability to manage jointly with other managers at that level. That is certainly what happens in my ward, where we have no governance mechanisms for dealing with the neighbourhood management agenda. In Liverpool 8, we have governance mechanisms, because we are reshaping the neighbourhood there. I do not think that the precise structure matters too much. The principle is that the LAA works only if it is working together in the areas of most stress.

Sir Simon Milton:   I strongly endorse that by reference to my own council, which has an LAA highly regarded by our Government office. We have explicitly local neighbourhood arrangements through our local area renewal partnerships. They tend to be in the deprived parts of the borough. We have a very polarised city, and very wealthy wards as well as the most deprived in London are in Westminster. We need to ensure that our local area agreements are expressed at a local level. Otherwise, they are not really worth having, because they are not going to get the outcomes that we desire.
There is a danger of getting too hung up about the mechanics. Councils will make it happen in their areas based on local knowledge, local traditions and local people. We have neighbourhood arrangements in six areas, but we do not have them in the other 14 wards of Westminster, because they are not needed. That is where we have different mechanisms to ensure that we are engaging with local people. In those six areas, we now have elected neighbourhood forums. For one of them, the turnout was equivalent to the turnout for ward council elections. People are getting involved and taking them seriously.

Joe Benton: I want to move on to co-operation of English authorities with local partners.

Q18Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): There is a welcome focus in the Bill on LAAs and partnership issues. Possibly less well covered are the proposed designated targets for LAAs. You suggested a specific upper limit, and I am wondering what it might be. What is a manageable number of targets with which to work, and what sort of issues would they cover?

Sir Simon Milton:   The Bill is a very welcome step, and we have been working closely with Government for some time in discussing what we wanted to see. Essentially, the LGA started out wanting 30 national outcomes, with a significantly reduced number of targets to govern those. We have ended up slightly higher than 30 and the number of targets has come down from some 1,200 to 200, so we are pleased with that and would welcome it.
Our concerns over making LAAs work were always going be centred around two things: first, the performance management framework, which is about the targets. We would like to see an upper limit expressed in the Bill, because there is a tendency, we suspect, despite the best wishes of Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government, to have target-creep over time. Therefore, we would rather have an upper limit in the Bill.
Secondly, the other thing that was very important to us was the duty to co-operate. There is one area in which the Bill has gone backwards from our understanding of the White Paper, in that local area agreements were originally conceived as an agreement between centre and local—a partnership between the two. However, in the Bill it is expressed differently, whereby the agreement is between the council and its local partners, and central Government becomes the approver of our agreement, rather than a partner to it. It is more than a semantic point. One thing that we have been concerned about throughout is ensuring that the big spending Departments are tied into the whole agreement process, from target setting to providing the powers, freedoms and flexibilities to enable us to meet stretch targets and perform better. We are worried that the way the relationship is now expressed moves Government on to a different level from local government. That is not what was in the White Paper.

Q19 Tom Brake:  Do you have any simple proposals that would address that?

Sir Simon Milton:   We would like the Government to go away and think about how that could be expressed better. If it comes to drafting, I am sure that we would be prepared to put forward some alternative words.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   In fairness to the Government, they have always seen their role, as Simon has described it, as being full partners in a process that engages both sides working towards agreed goals, rather than one signing off the other. But the Bill does not reflect that. That is, presumably, accidental, but it would be helpful if it were looked at again.

Sir Simon Milton:   There is another specific point I should like to make, if I may, while we are speaking about partners and the duty to co-operate. Again, some partners that we were expecting to see listed as part of the duty to co-operate have not been listed. I understand that, for example, NHS foundation health trusts were omitted, possibly in error, but we would welcome hearing some reassurance about that. But there are also some other names missing that I would like to suggest your Committee considers. For example, in London the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority are part of the partnership and are expected to co-operate, but Transport for London and the GLA are not. I think that that was probably an oversight, but we would welcome your looking at that.
Will you also look at whether registered social landlords should be included in the duty to co-operate, because they can be important? I have 50 RSLs operating in my borough and being able to co-ordinate all their activities around sustainable communities issues is important. We hope that those bodies will co-operate voluntarily, but if there is a duty to co-operate on all the other partners and agencies, we do not see a good reason why they should be excluded.

Q20 Mr. Woolas:  Would it be possible to give an example or examples of how the hospital trusts are involved? Can you give an example of how that would affect a local authority?

Sir Simon Milton:   A real issue in my authority is that of looking to develop an alcohol harm reduction strategy and, to do that, the role of our hospitals is important, in providing data on admissions, accident and emergency incidents and alcohol-related attacks on NHS staff. We would expect them to come to the table with that, as well as providing medical support and advice for that strategy.

Q21 Mr. Woolas:  Thank you. The implication is that there are examples where there is not co-operation at the moment. Are there any financial benefits in terms of flexibilities of budgets between those partners—in this case, the hospitals—that you could see would derive were that duty to co-operate extended?

Sir Simon Milton:   Clearly, there may well be links on the health and social care side that could generate savings if we were to have our budgets underlined or even pulled. There would be opportunities there, as well as with the primary care trusts.

Richard Kemp:   May I add one thing? Clearly, we are getting greater enhanced duties and greater acceptance of the local authority’s role. There is often a real question of capacity with the partners who are supposed to co-operate with it. We spoke before about some of the capacity-building issues for councillors but, as it happens, I chair a housing association. When we are checked for governance, we are not checked for how we are good partners. We are not checked for our understanding of the strategic housing role of the local authority. There is no training programme for members of PCT boards or RSL boards to enable us to be good partners to the local authority. Having the means to do it is one thing, but having the will to do it is another and there certainly needs to be capacity building around all the parts of government that are supposed to come into the partnerships.

Q22 Alistair Burt:  We are looking at the community call process. Your brief makes it clear that you would have preferred crime and disorder arrangements to come within community call instead of under the separate arrangements as they are at the moment. Why do you not think that the mixture of systems will work? Why do you think that it would be better to bring it all under the one umbrella?

Richard Kemp:   There are two reasons. First, it is very difficult for members of the public to understand that there are different methods, because they just go through the same front door for services and expect to be dealt with in the same way. Simplification for the public is of prime concern. Secondly, probably half the complaints with which I deal in my ward are jointly for the police and council. They are licensing; they are transport; they are crime and antisocial behaviour. They are things like that and can be called to account one way by what the council does. However, our partners who deal with another aspect will be called to account in another way. It just seems clumsy and untidy. We cannot see a rationale for it, but we can see a rationale for doing things the same way.

Q23 Alistair Burt:  In the consultation process leading up to the publication of the Bill, were you given any rationale by the Government about why they would handle it that way?

Richard Kemp:   Not that I recall. No, we were not.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   The problem was that the Home Office Bill was earlier and there was perhaps not sufficient discussion between the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government on the proposals.

Alistair Burt: It is our old friend joined-up government again.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   Exactly, and the Home Office.

Alistair Burt: Better left unsaid.

Q24 Alison Seabeck:  Can you explain your concerns about the interaction between part 13 of the Bill and the powers of front-line councillors and the community call for action procedure? Do you sense that there is duplication or that there is potential for confusion?

Richard Kemp:   We have to make sure that the two go together. In many ways, we are not talking about a new role for front-line councillors. As anyone who has been a councillor—I see from your biographies that many of you have—will know, when someone comes to your advice centre, they expect you to deal with matters. The fact is that you have only powers for two or three of the things that they come to you for, but they assume that you can be their advocate for almost every other public service.
We have the important role of the local councillor understanding his or her own services. We have the important role of the local councillor being the advocate for the local community into other services, and we have what I described before as the cabinet member role of actually pulling together partnerships, activity and direction from different organisations. We want to make sure that they are properly supported, properly resourced and properly directed.
If we had concern about the community call for action procedure certainly in the early days, it is our guess at who might be taking advantage of those powers. I am sure that you will know from your own advice centres—I certainly know from mine—that those coming in will have pursued every hobby horse for a considerable time, but now want to shoo it down another route. I hope that that is short-term problem, but we must make sure that the community call for action is not just a moaners’ charter and is a practical proposal that can lead to policy changes, a better use of resources and a local councillor’s time.

Sir Simon Milton:   If your question was getting to the point of “Should councillors have to be the conduit for these community calls for actions?”, my answer would be yes I think that they should. There has to be some filtering and sifting mechanism to prevent the abuse to which Richard has just referred.

Q25 Alison Seabeck:  Do you have a view about resourcing and support for councillors if they are to take on the new role?

Sir Simon Milton:   I think that there might be some requirement for additional resourcing, but I would not build that in from the start. Councillors have to learn to say no to all sorts of lobby groups, just as Members of Parliament do. Part of the skill is being able to do that in a way that is appropriate and does not burn all your bridges. When my colleagues complain about over-zealous residents associations putting them under pressure, I just say, “Well, that’s the world you’ve entered.”

Q26 Alison Seabeck:  I was referring to resourcing not in terms of people necessarily, but also in terms of the information to which they have access. This comes back to your earlier point about the back-bench or front-line councillor needing access to information.

Sir Simon Milton:   That is right. What I tell my councillors when they are first elected is that you can be a councillor or you can be an effective councillor. An effective councillor is somebody who learns how to work the system to get things done. It is the same with the community call for action. If you are an effective councillor, frankly you will be able to sort out many of your constituents’ problems without them having to go for a community call for action.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   The council has to gear itself to deal with those requests. There will perhaps be a need to support divisional councillors, but the council itself must make sure its systems are capable of responding to calls for action in a timely way.

Q27 Mr. Turner:  Do you agree that there is a worry about the nimby brigade taking over? Do you think that regulations should be built into the Bill to prevent that? I can also see the possibility of minority political parties abusing the system quite effectively. How do you think we should deal with that?

Richard Kemp:   Again, I have to ask: is this significantly different from what happens now? We have area committees in Liverpool, and most of the community members—we have voluntary members on board—are failed candidates of other political parties, of which there are quite a few in Liverpool. We have to find a way of dealing with that. We know the green ink brigade, but it is relatively small. I would not like to be prescriptive over regulations to try to deal with a small number of people, and prevent people from genuinely coming to use the system.
We basically believe that the community call for action is a strengthening of the role of the front-line councillor, particularly because it will make other organisations relate to us in a better way. At the moment, that is quite serendipitous. We can go to different parts of the same place and the police work very closely with the ward councillors but, under the next area commander, they do not. This is really a help and I would not over-regulate it. If there are problems, one hopes there is flexibility. However, if the council just says, “We’re not dealing with you again, Mr. Smith,” there will be recognition that other MPs and who-have-you would not intrude.

Sir Simon Milton:   What will the community call for action achieve? As I have understood it, it will mean that an issue is looked at, possibly in a scrutiny committee, and a report written. It does not mandate change in the executive decision, and that is the ultimate safeguard.

Q28 Alistair Burt:  Equally, is not that the ultimate problem? Is there not frustration at grass-roots level that people are endlessly consulted but nothing is achieved, because if all the consultation produces is something that an executive or a council does not want to do, people feel they have been led up the hill and then nothing happens? We are all struggling with the business of raised expectations. Is not the danger that this measure will raise expectations without providing a mechanism to get anything done?
In Liverpool, there has been such difficulty over the pathfinder scheme. Quite strong views have been expressed in the same locality about what might or might not be done. Would this measure have produced a mechanism that would have enabled some of the issues to be brought to a different conclusion from what is being reached at the moment? Or does it just raise expectations that things can be done for people, although nothing will be done, so people’s frustration at the system of both national and local government is merely confirmed?

Richard Kemp:   You have to look, then, at the whole consultation process, to which this might be a final end. You referred to the pathfinder consultation. That did not take place over six or 12 months; it took place over four years. There was meeting after meeting; people were visited in their own homes; there was consultation about the area; and there was consultation about the individual. Then, at the end of it, 80 per cent. of the people in the area supported the proposals and 20 per cent. did not. Nothing is going to change that.
If as you are suggesting the 20 per cent. believe that they can be re-empowered for the executive to take different decisions after a strong period of such consultation, they will be wrong. But there are places where consultation from both central and local government is fatuous and where people consult when they have already taken a decision, so there needs to be a further safeguard and a check on the process. We need to consider what we mean by consultation, how we do it and particularly how we get information on day-to-day services. We still go out and consult on whether people would like their area to be clean or dirty, and then we are surprised that they say, “Oh, we’d absolutely like this area to be clean please”. I am afraid that that sounds fatuous, but it happens in some of the questionnaires that go out from central as well as local government.

Sir Simon Milton:   The reality is that, as with everything else, there is a variance between councils and authorities about how well they conduct consultations. If everyone accepts that we are never going to please everyone, someone is ultimately going to have to make a decision and some people will have to be disappointed. What is important is that people feel that they have been able to have their say and to influence things. MORI carries out interesting research on behalf of the Government when it asks people to what extent they feel that they are able to have their voices heard, to what extent they are able to influence decisions and whether they want more influence over decisions.
Again there is a variance in pattern. In my authority, I look for the results because I am looking to hear that people feel they can influence things and they do not feel that they want more power. That is generally the result that is obtained, but it varies between authorities. Within local government, part of the raising-our-game requirement is about trying to raise the quality of consultation of the least good to the levels of those who do it well. There are some councils around the country of all political persuasions who consult effectively.

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   The research also shows that people want to have more information and proper explanations of decisions, even if they do not agree with them. This process would reinforce that.

Joe Benton: Can we move on to part 9 of the Bill on ethical standards?

Q29 Andrew Stunell:  You were slightly ahead of me, Mr. Benton. Can I move us to the section about the conduct of councillors? Clause 131 allows councillors to be suspended for actions taken in their private lives as well as their public lives and moves the law back to perhaps where people thought it was. What impact will that have on people seeking a hold in public office?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   I do not think that this is a major issue for people seeking public office. Some of those who attain public office have had unfortunate experiences, to put it mildly. I do not detect any concerns among those aspiring to office. The Bill’s main thrust in repatriating decisions to a local level rather than leaving them as they have been with the Standards Board is to be welcomed. It is better that most of those matters are dealt with at local level. Recent Standards Board decisions confirm the desirability of that.

Q30 Andrew Stunell:  Does the LGA have a view about whether the standards of conduct test should apply only for council-related activities or whether it should extend to personal conduct outside of council activities?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   I think our view, although I stand to be corrected, is that it should be confined to council-related activities.

Paul Coen:   My understanding is that the Standards Board and its draft code of conduct propose to limit markedly that stricture in relation to non-council business; essentially to criminal activity. My sense is that members generally feel that that is an appropriate additional stricture on their conduct.

Q31 Tom Levitt:  Is there a danger by making the responsibility more local that standards cease to be standard across the country?

Sir Jeremy Beecham:   There will be guidance and a national code on which consultation is, I think, about to take place.

Phil Woolas: We also have a statutory obligation to consult.

Richard Kemp:   The one concern that I would have about local determination is not about the principle or the standards committee, but the training for monitoring and planning officers in understanding the codes. I go to some places and I see decisions made that I think are just about officers trying to keep members quiet, particularly in planning matters. I think that you should not be able to be a monitoring officer unless you have a qualification and been on a course. Similar advice should be given to planning officers who give quite arbitrary rulings in many cases.

Sir Simon Milton:   And there is a degree of inconsistency across councils about when members are allowed to speak on planning issues due to different interpretations by their monitoring offices.

Joe Benton: May we return to part 8 of the Bill, which deals with the inspection and audit of local services? There is a question on this section.

Q32 Alistair Burt:  We did not want you to feel that we were completely missing out the issues relating to inspection and audits. There was just an oversight as we went through the questions earlier. This whole business about the extraordinarily rigorous auditing of councils has come up again and again over many years as a source of frustration from local authorities. The LGA makes a specific request in terms of inspection and audit, in which it says that it would “would have preferred a more forward looking approach with the Audit Commission working with the other inspectorates to set out a forward programme of inspections for a locality over a two to three year period.”
With all the pressures upon you, do you think a chance is being missed to relieve you and those who work in local government of some of these pressures and to get this on to some sort of sensible basis so that they can get on with their job of providing services to the public without being over-regulated to death?

Sir Simon Milton:   Our starting point has been that the regulation of local councils costs Government around £2.5 billion—a massive cost, and much of that is over-burdensome, collecting information for no particular purpose. The Government have recognised that and wish to move away from that, which we welcome.
The thing that councils find particularly irksome, or have done, is when a number of different inspectorates all want to come and inspect the council and to inspect it to quite ridiculous degrees. For example, in services that are not high risk, this results in 10 or 12 inspectors coming in and looking at something like the library service or adult learning. That does not seem proportionate.
Therefore we wanted two things. We wanted more proportionate inspection, but also better co-ordinated inspection and a gatekeeper who would control and hold back the other inspectorates. The Audit Commission has been identified in the Bill as that key gatekeeper, which we welcome. We want to make sure that it is not just a traffic controller, in terms of waving in the different inspectorates, but actually forms a view as to what is needed and that unnecessary inspection of services that are not high risk does not take place and, moreover, that there is not a high price of failure.
Clearly, some services should be inspected rigorously and regularly—those to do with child protection, vulnerable adults and so on. However, many other services that have been subject to inspection in the past do not need it. We welcome a more risk-based proportionate approach and want to ensure that the Audit Commission has the necessary teeth to say to the other inspectorates, “No, it is not appropriate or necessary for you to go into that local authority.”

Q33 Andrew Stunell:  The Audit Commission has the power to take commissions from local councils. Clause 122 proposes to abolish that. Does the LGA have a view about the power to accept commissions and conversely the power of local authorities to commission?

Sir Simon Milton:   Yes, we support the Audit Commission’s position on that. We do not think that it is necessary or desirable to remove that power.

Joe Benton: We now have a question on part 11.

Q34 Patrick Hall:  The LGA has welcomed what the Government have said on local involvement networks coming under the umbrella of local government. I have three questions on the matter.
My first question concerns the requirement for councils to contract with a host organisation and to set up the LINK within its territory. There will be 152 such organisations, so I should like to ask whether you have considered that. I guess that there will not necessarily be 152 organisations ready to act as hosts to contract with local councils to set up separate LINKs. There may well be national or regional organisations that councils will find it convenient to go to. How do you think the local and particular characteristics of the different councils will be reflected and guaranteed in a system that may use an organisation that lays down a national or a standard model to set up LINKs? The Government do not want to prescribe in detail what the LINKs should be like; they want to allow them to develop according to local conditions. Local government will be quite keen to see that happen, but how will it happen through the contracting method that has been suggested?
Secondly, a question that members of patients forums have raised a great deal with regard to a new system is: how would one guarantee the independence of the LINK, if it is part of local government? How could one ensure that LINKs will not be captured by a political group, or be unduly influenced by the senior officers of the council?
Lastly, LINKs are trying to do something that we have not really attempted before in this country. The idea is to try to reach out to the tens of thousands of individuals who are not the sort of people who volunteer to be on committees. That is a challenging task indeed. If we are to achieve that through LINKs, how do you think local government can assist and what level of resources will be required?

Richard Kemp:   You enter into difficult ground for us to deal with, because we are dealing with an entirely new system. We start off, however, from an assumption that we welcome LINKs, because we are aware that there is a democratic deficit in the current system. For example, research has been conducted recently about the number of people who have gone on to the electoral register for foundation hospitals, how many voted, the quality of the people who stood. It was not an exercise in democracy, perhaps for the reasons that you just mentioned.
We support the concept of LINKs in the context of the wider discussions that we have been having about, for example, overview and scrutiny, and the effective scrutiny of the health service. Clearly, a local authority that does not have the general power of health well-being, which was in White Paper but has not been contained in the Bill—we would regret that and think it an opportunity missed—will not be as powerful as it otherwise could be.
The local authority and the LINKs must work together. That is one way to answer your question. To look at some of the existing mechanisms, by itself a patients forum will tend to deal with narrow interests and with particular diseases, illnesses and problems. I think that it is the role of the local authority to help the LINKs to shape the debate, so that people who have a genuine grievance with a part of the health service can relate that problem to the wider problems of the health service. That is where there must be the link between the LINKs and the local authority, in looking at the well-being picture and the overview. However, these are early days. We would look for more guidance, and we have offered to contribute to that, to deal with some of the problems.

Q35 Alistair Burt:  Is not what you have just mentioned the whole point? Is it not the awkwardness of some people on patients forum, their doggedness in picking up a single issue and running with it, that can make change and make things happen? Surely what you have described is part of a centralising process to diminish criticism—to make sure that the problem is always seen in a wider context, as part of a whole, so that one can say to someone, “You must understand this, that and the other.” That the way to patronise a complainant and make sure that they do not stick with their concerns or get support. Is that not part of the process that we are seeing? Again, because of your conflicted responsibilities here, you will not see it the way patients do, which is why their independence should be protected. The measure is not a clever move for patients and their concerns, but it will help administration enormously.

Richard Kemp:   You underrate the willingness of the council to scrutinise service delivery effectively. There are some very good examples of local government scrutiny of the health service. If a individual has a problem, and that problem is linked to the oncology department of the hospital, and that department is not doing things right, it is entirely proper that a council or the LINKs should deal with it as an individual issue. The attempt to bring issues together is an attempt to sidetrack not those people who have a rightful case, but people who can be obsessive about their individual case to the detriment of all others. However, the change should not stop genuine problems being dealt with effectively, even at a micro level.

Sir Simon Milton:   I would not dismiss what Mr. Burt says—he raises a real point. From my personal experience, some of the most dogged monitors of the performance of local hospitals are local councillors. Back-bench councillors are the ones who really get the bit between their teeth, who will nag away on an issue. I do not think that that would not be done effectively under the new system, but I think that Mr. Burt raised an important point.

Q36 Tom Levitt:  There is a lot of emphasis in the Bill on the relationship between local authorities and health bodies where services are delivered within a local authority area. Do you anticipate that LINKs would also work with acute trusts that are based outside a local authority area but serve people within that area? Does that not make for a potentially very complex relationship in which hospitals would relate to many local authorities and LINKs?

Richard Kemp:   There is always a core. In my own city, we have a children’s hospital, 95 per cent. of whose work is done for two or three local councils, but in some very acute cases people are helicoptered in from, say, Carlisle. Local government is used to working across boundaries. When we scrutinise the police service, which operates across five boundaries, we usually look at its local, neighbourhood or city operations. I do not see that as a big problem. If Carlisle really had a problem with the way in which people are treated, it could easily get in touch with Liverpool, Sefton or Knowsley councils or another host council. There are complexities, but they are not insuperable.

Q37 Patrick Hall:  May I come back on that? I fully accept that it will be difficult to go into detail because the proposals are new, but that is why we have to ask the questions. Hopefully, you will understand that and contribute.
I asked about the potential costs involved in trying to do the ambitious job of reaching out to thousands of people who never see themselves as participating. Have you given that any consideration? In your evidence, you referred to the fact that it could be very costly. Have you had any thoughts about how much it might cost and have you discussed it with the Government?

Richard Kemp:   We have not quantified the cost. We made the point that it could be an onerous cost because of the scale of the health service. The health service spends more than we do, and we are trying scrutinise it, and support mechanisms that will scrutinise it externally.

Patrick Hall: It is social care as well.

Richard Kemp:   Precisely—we are dealing with very big costs. We are spending a lot already through the scrutiny process, money that has to come out of our own resources. Extra costs are extra burdens. We have had an assurance from the Deputy Prime Minister that any extra burdens imposed by central Government will be met by central Government. I am always an optimist.

Joe Benton: There are no further questions from the Committee and that brings us to the end of our proceedings. May I place on the record, on this, the first of these occasions, the Committee’s thanks to the witnesses here this morning? It has been a very informative session and most helpful. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much, gentlemen,.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Jonathan Shaw.]

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to One o’clock till this day at half-past Four o’clock.